Does Participation Affect Deception Success

Communication episodes may range from highly interactive to noninteractive. The principle of interactivity refers to the constellation of structural and experiential features associated with interactivity that systematically affect communication processes and outcomes. One such feature is degree of participation. In deceptive interchanges, senders may engage in dialogic (high participation, two-way) or monologic (low participation, one-way) communication. According to the principle of interactivity, dialogue should advantage deceivers relative to monologue due to increased mutuality between sender and receiver and greater opportunities for deceivers to improve their performance over time. An experiment in which friends or strangers alternated between deceiving and telling the truth to a partner under dialogue or monologue conditions tested this principle. All hypotheses received some support. Relative to monologue, dialogue created more mutuality among strangers. Dialogue also enabled deceivers to better manage their informational content, speech fluency, nonverbal demeanor, and image, resulting in less accurate deception detection by partners. These results support the interactivity principle and interpersonal deception theory, from which the principle emanated.

[1]  Malcolm R. Parks,et al.  Deception Detection and Relationship Development: The Other Side of Trust , 1986 .

[2]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Effects of preinteraction expectancies and target communication on perceiver reciprocity and compensation in dyadic interaction , 1995 .

[3]  R. Nisbett,et al.  Behavior as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer , 1973 .

[4]  B. Depaulo,et al.  The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: Replications and extensions , 1988 .

[5]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Adaptation and Communicative Design Patterns of Interaction in Truthful and Deceptive Conversations , 2001 .

[6]  John E. Newhagen,et al.  Why Communication Researchers Should Study the Internet: A Dialogue , 1996, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[7]  Joey F. George,et al.  Group support systems and deceptive communication , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[8]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Adaptation: Dyadic Interaction Patterns , 1995 .

[9]  Laura K. Guerrero,et al.  Interpersonal deception: XII. Information management dimensions underlying deceptive and truthful messages , 1996 .

[10]  David B. Buller,et al.  Interpersonal deception: II. The inferiority of conversational participants as deception detectors. , 1991 .

[11]  L. Tickle-Degnen,et al.  The Nature of Rapport and Its Nonverbal Correlates , 1990 .

[12]  C. F. Bond,et al.  Fishy-looking liars: deception judgment from expectancy violation. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Computer-mediated communication for intellectual teamwork: a field experiment in group writing , 1990, CSCW '90.

[14]  Frank J. Bernieri,et al.  Dyad rapport and the accuracy of its judgment across situations: A lens model analysis. , 1996 .

[15]  Aldert Vrij,et al.  Individual Differences in Hand Movements During Deception , 1997 .

[16]  D. Gilbert,et al.  On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. , 1988 .

[17]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Applying a social meaning model to relational message interpretations of conversational involvement: Comparing observer and participant perspectives , 1991 .

[18]  P. Ekman,et al.  Nonverbal Leakage and Clues to Deception †. , 1969, Psychiatry.

[19]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception Theory , 1996 .

[20]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Measurement of deceptive voices: Comparing acoustic and perceptual data , 1997, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[21]  Norah E. Dunbar,et al.  An interactionist perspective on dominance‐submission: Interpersonal dominance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill , 2000 .

[22]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal deception: V. Accuracy in deception detection , 1994 .

[23]  C. White,et al.  Testing Interpersonal Deception Theory: Effects of Suspicion on Communication Behaviors and Perceptions , 1996 .

[24]  Matthew Lombard,et al.  At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence , 2006 .

[25]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. , 1983 .

[26]  Sherry K. Schneider,et al.  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL INFORMATION: STATUS SALIENCE AND STATUS DIFFERENCES , 1995 .

[27]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  The Nature of Conversational Involvement and Nonverbal Encoding Patterns , 1987 .

[28]  M. Zuckerman.  Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception , 1981 .

[29]  E. Goffman.  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .

[30]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[31]  S. W. Gregory,et al.  A nonverbal signal in voices of interview partners effectively predicts communication accommodation and social status perceptions. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  The Role of Conversational Involvement in Deceptive Interpersonal Interactions , 1999 .

[33]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal deception: III. Effects of deceit on perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics , 1994 .

[34]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Lying in everyday life. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  C. Edgley,et al.  Information control in conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy , 1975 .

[36]  T. Levine,et al.  When lovers become leery: The relationship between suspicion and accuracy in detecting deception , 1990 .

[37]  Norah E. Dunbar,et al.  Testing the Interactivity Model: Communication Processes, Partner Assessments, and the Quality of Collaborative Work , 1999, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[38]  David C. Chou,et al.  A Manager's Guide to Data Mining , 1999, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[39]  David B. Buller,et al.  Interpersonal deception. I : Deceivers' reactions to receivers' suspicions and probing , 1991 .

[40]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception Theory , 1996 .

[41]  B. Depaulo,et al.  The Motivational Impairment Effect in the Communication of Deception , 1989 .

[42]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance , 1998 .

[43]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal deception: VI. Effects of preinteractional and interactional factors on deceiver and observer perceptions of deception success , 1994 .

[44]  Robert P. Hawkins,et al.  Advancing communication science : merging mass and interpersonal processes , 1988 .

[45]  W. Swann,et al.  On “knowing your partner”: Dangerous illusions in the age of AIDS? , 1995 .

[46]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Conversations Over Video Conferences: An Evaluation of the Spoken Aspects of Video-Mediated Communication , 1993, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[47]  R. Kelly Aune,et al.  The effect of probing on deceivers and truthtellers , 1989 .

[48]  G. Keppel.  Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook, 3rd ed. , 1991 .

[49]  J. Monahan.  Information Processing Differences of Conversational Participants and Observers: The Effects of Self-Presentation Concerns and Cognitive Load. , 1995 .

[50]  R. Street,et al.  Speech Evaluation Differences as a Function of Perspective (Participant Versus Observer) and Presentational Medium , 1988 .

[51]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception: IV. Effects of Suspicion on Perceived Communication and Nonverbal Behavior Dynamics. , 1995 .

[52]  Luigi Anolli,et al.  The Voice of Deception: Vocal Strategies of Naive and Able Liars , 1997 .

[53]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Nonverbal Communication: The Unspoken Dialogue , 1988 .

[54]  A. Vrij.  Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice , 2000 .

[55]  James B. Stiff,et al.  Truth Biases and Aroused Suspicion in Relational Deception , 1992 .

[56]  S. W. Gregory.  Sounds of Power and Deference: Acoustic Analysis of Macro Social Constraints on Micro Interaction , 1994 .